01-01-2011, 03:06 AM
Hi,
Even selflessness is ultimately based on self interest, but on a different level.
I suspect there was never such a time. Primates tend to group into bands with the biggest, meanest, cleverest male being in charge and the pecking order going down in some fashion based on those attributes. I doubt if it was any different when the first 'humans' (whatever that means) evolved. And I don't see all that much difference today.
No, you do it because there are survival instincts at various levels. The survival of your specific DNA (which makes you put the lives of your children ahead of your own), the survival of your familial DNA (which is why "Blood is thicker than water"), and then the survival of the DNA of the species (which is why altruism exists -- and can be expressed as long as it doesn't interfere with the higher priorities -- which is why you'll kill a healthy enemy and try to cure a wounded one).
Yes, it does feel that way. But I suspect the reality is more bound with survival than anything else. The fault isn't with the science, but with the scientist. Failure to generate an explanation does not mean there isn't one -- and, in the end, a prosaic one at that.
If our ancestors sprouted wings, we'd be an arboreal species. The balance of altruism and selfishness that exists in all of us is the result of millenia of evolution. It is the balance that best served our DNA. The survival characteristics developed over an extensive period of pre-civilized life may not be the ideal for the past eight or so millenia of living in cities, but that span is too short (especially since civilization takes a lot of the 'selectors' away) to have changed us much, if at all. You're not going to change it, not by law nor by desire.
--Pete
(12-31-2010, 09:41 AM)kandrathe Wrote: Or... selflessness.
Even selflessness is ultimately based on self interest, but on a different level.
(12-31-2010, 09:41 AM)kandrathe Wrote: When not co-opted by power hungry megalomaniacs, the original concepts were a devoted communalism.
I suspect there was never such a time. Primates tend to group into bands with the biggest, meanest, cleverest male being in charge and the pecking order going down in some fashion based on those attributes. I doubt if it was any different when the first 'humans' (whatever that means) evolved. And I don't see all that much difference today.
(12-31-2010, 09:41 AM)kandrathe Wrote: But, I wouldn't let them suffer if I could help them. They are actually nice people, but we don't really hang out together much. I wouldn't do it because I believe there is something in it for me, like their gratitude, reciprocity, or even that warm feeling deep inside.
No, you do it because there are survival instincts at various levels. The survival of your specific DNA (which makes you put the lives of your children ahead of your own), the survival of your familial DNA (which is why "Blood is thicker than water"), and then the survival of the DNA of the species (which is why altruism exists -- and can be expressed as long as it doesn't interfere with the higher priorities -- which is why you'll kill a healthy enemy and try to cure a wounded one).
(12-31-2010, 09:41 AM)kandrathe Wrote: I do it, just as I would for hungry birds on my back porch, or when I toss some corn cobs near the pines where the local deer herd beds down. I do it, because they need it and I don't. I know I am a part of a greater whole, ...
Yes, it does feel that way. But I suspect the reality is more bound with survival than anything else. The fault isn't with the science, but with the scientist. Failure to generate an explanation does not mean there isn't one -- and, in the end, a prosaic one at that.
(12-31-2010, 09:41 AM)kandrathe Wrote: ... and if everyone adopted the same "take care of each other" philosophy (by choice, not law) then the world would be a happier, nicer place.
If our ancestors sprouted wings, we'd be an arboreal species. The balance of altruism and selfishness that exists in all of us is the result of millenia of evolution. It is the balance that best served our DNA. The survival characteristics developed over an extensive period of pre-civilized life may not be the ideal for the past eight or so millenia of living in cities, but that span is too short (especially since civilization takes a lot of the 'selectors' away) to have changed us much, if at all. You're not going to change it, not by law nor by desire.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?